Why did we develop the Stryker for the US Army instead of buying the off-the-shelf General Dynamics LAV 3?

CPT Lawrence Cable, I'm certainly familiar with non-doctrinal warfare after the last 22 years, but I'm not talking about fighting the plan or doctrine. I'm talking about using the right tool for the right job. The Army was lucky...LUCKY...in 1990 that Sadam Husein bought the feint on his Eastern flank from the Marine amphibious landing that never happened. If he didn't, we wouldn't have an 82nd Airborne any longer, because a mechanized division was about to make mince meat out of them. You don't screen an armored force with a light infantry force. In the same light, you don't use a Stryker Brigade Combat Team against a Mechanized Infantry Division...unless you can get it to a dismount point on key and decisive terrain and put all of its javelins in the fight at one time. Then it can knock the snot-bubbles out of mechanized force. If it's moving though...you're done. It takes a mix of forces and the Stryker provides the lightly armored mobility that leg infantry doesn't have. Airborne and airmobile infantry have operational and strategic mobility, but move at the speed of smell once you put them on the ground. The idea that the Stryker Brigade is flawed or that the vehicle itself is flawed is fallacious. It is a perfectly suitable tool for the right problem. You're never going to find the perfect tool. Just one that's suitable for the right situation. The MRAP is great if you want to watch while you get shot at. If you want to survive a blast...rock and roll. Then you have to squeeze yourself out of a tiny door, one at a time to deploy yourself and you don't have any hatches to fire from or provide any kind of offense except for the turret which is like looking down a soda straw at the battlefield while everyone else around you is screaming at you to shoot something while people are on fire. If you want to survive an IED while going from point A to point B...good vehicle. If you want to do a real patrol...meh. It's better than a HMMWV, but again, that's what the light infantry already had, so we had to give them something else. The heavy brigades couldn't roll their tanks and bradleys everywhere, so they got them as well. Again, not the best vehicles for non-conventional warfare. The Stryker is a good vehicle. You just have to use it and the Brigade for the right job and not expect it to be something its not.

COL (Join to see) - I don't disagree at all. Having been with an airmobile unit, I'm very aware of how fast things are on the ground and at least we had gunships. I think we are both talking in the same direction. I am not of the opinion that the MRAP's are the final answer to non linear warfare, but it's was certainly a step in the right direction. I am pointing at the fact that the Stryker wasn't originally designed to be mine resistant although the role that was the original concept certainly made that part of the likely threats. So now we go back and add what I would have thought should have been a obvious design requirement.
I've been watching "The Long Road Home". The Stryker would have been a much better choice as a patrol vehicle than an armored HMMWV. The Double Hull version would be even better. Of course, I would have picked a M113 over an armored Hummer, but I'm old school.
BTW, the original CASSPIR had a top turrent and double doors on the rear that were not incorporated into the Engineer Buffalo. I had thought that the Cougar had incorporated the larger rear door off the South African Cheetah, but haven't seen one IRL.

I think the asymmetrical dynamics have once again exposed risks of a light infantry - NOT MINE RESISTANT vehicle for known battle-spaces with IED problems. Going to the BVH variant will help to some degree but as I understand it not all are being reworked.

Ok, if you Army folks will let an Air Force guy chime in, the Army was dumb. They were grasping at that unattainable goal of one weapon system that can fill many missions. That platform does not, nor will ever, exist! Look, for over 10 years I flew McNamara's folly, the TFX which became the F-111. This was envisioned as the one platform can do it all aircraft for the Air Force and Navy. Fortunately during development both services realized that this was an impossible task. While a very capable aircraft there were many missions that it frankly couldn't do. This was in the 60s and 70s so it would seem the Army would have learned from its sister services, but No! Here in 2018 we are seeing discussions of trying to make one system, the, the Stryker,` do it all, and that also includes the AF who is still trying to hang it's hat on the F-35 being a capable CAS aircraft. The one system fits all idea is foolish and while it may be approved in the short term as a way to control costs it will end up costing way more than developing mission specific systems in the long run.

In all honestly, the LAV-25A2 is, for the most part, amphibious on paper. Swimming them is very sketchy and God forbid an AAV or RHIB swims next to you. The wake alone from either of those is enough to capsize the LAV. I, personally, hate having to swim them.

LCpl (Join to see) - The same problem with the M113. It has so little freeboard that any wake will sink one. It has the additional problem that the propulsion is provided by the tracks, so if the driver guns the engine or isn't steady on the throttle, it starts rocking front to back with similar results.

We have a propeller and rudder system in the LAV-25A2 that, when the marine drive is engaged, turns with the throttle and steering. Even then, it's rough to swim. Best example was when I was going out on Del Mar Beach to do a loop and come back; I would turn the steering wheel all the way to the left and 3-5 seconds later, the vehicle would SLOWLY start to turn. Then you gotta plan on steering back 3-5 seconds in advanced and half the time, it doesn't go the direction you want.

Greetings again to all in this interesting thread about upgrade / enhancement of the LAV series.
In addition to modifications --- as described -- of the LAV basic vehicle series, there are planned improvements -- actually, replacement with a completely-new turret system -- to "up-gun" the LAV's cannon system from the current 25mm gun to a 30mm gun (in the near term) and also exploration prototype testing underway of yet another turret system, armed with a Orbital ATK-developed (reportedly the firm) 40mm gun. The LAV-25-equipped USMC recon units at MCB Camp Pendleton and MCB Camp Lejeune are reportedly looking with great interest at the 30mm system.

As sometimes heard on TV, "BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!" In addition to the Canadian and javascript:void(0)USMC units as immediate recipients and users of the upgraded LAVs, there are two potential (very probable, IMPO) international military customers, both in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). They are [1] Ministry of the National Guard (aka SANG) in its mechanized infantry brigades and [2] Ministry of Interior (MOI), which has several LAV-equipped mechanized special-purpose units (a la US vehicle-mounted SWAT QRF teams). LAV models in the SANG inventory include a turreted model armed with a 90mm cannon, an ATGM platform with a retractable two-tube TOW-II launcher, and a mortar-carrier armed with a custom-built French 120mm Brandt breech-loaded mortar. LAV models in the MOI units are primarily the basic LAV-25 model.

A FYI side note about another topic mentioned elsewhere in this thread: the "signature vehicle" of ISIS is the Toyota Tacoma off-road light truck (both two-door and four-door models), with preference for the versions with the longer cargo bed (the larger space accommodates drop-mounting inside of Russian and US HMGs for providing direct fire support as "gun trucks" during ground assaults and for probing enemy defenses.

The trucks apparently arrive from the Toyota distributors already painted in the optionally-available "Desert Sand" color (per the owner of such a Tacoma here in California). ISIS either paints on or affixes a magnetic sign with the black-and-white ISIS logo on the front doors and engine hood. Available graphics -- especially pro-ISIS propaganda videos and printed media -- show visually-identical models of Tacomas (with a few Tundra trucks also sprinkled) in ISIS convoys moving in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Hope this helps. Today is Thursday, 8 March 2018.

Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO (48G Middle East - "Gulfie"),
U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro, California

(This may be an inadvertent duplicate posting.)

It is frustrating. The uniforms the Army had from July, 2003 to 2015 when they finally decided to go with the ocp. I just can't see us having a light armored vehicle I can't cross the river when no pontoon bridges are available at the moment.

Agreed!!!

1LT Sandy Annala - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Szn-1TJVI

Looks good on paper - both in budget and in terms of operations. The idea of a Stryker formation being used to dismount its infantry one terrain feature away from the objective all ends however the moment it meets any API or APHE rounds. However that goes for most current APC's.